Homophobia ("gay bashing") is as much about enforcing rigid gender roles as it is about opposition to homosexuality. Which I find confusing, because I consider a group of guys bonding over hypermasculine rituals a whole lot gayer than a man painting his toenails with a bunch of girls. I know as well as anyone that your interests, activities, and gender expression do not determine your sexual orientation, but it's not unheard of (nor hard to believe) for guys heavily involved in masculine culture to turn out to be gay. Yet the stereotype for homosexual men is to have effeminate style. Meanwhile, I wear pink dresses and panties with princesses on them, and I'm the straightest guy I know, strictly in the sense of being attracted to girls. It just so happens that I'm so attracted to girls that I'd rather wear girls' clothes and underwear (among other things) than men's. And so, the weightlifter with his bulging pecs represents, to me, in all his masculinity, homoeroticism far more than my decision to don a skirt and brush my hair. But all of this confusion is, ultimately, a symptom of the fact that we've got the concepts of sex, gender, and orientation all mixed up together. Still, I find it the height of irony that I have to put up armor against gay bashing attitudes from hypermasculine brutes all because I adore females a little too much...
Actually, when I think about it, maybe what's happening with regards to gender policing is that men see feminine cues in me, and it makes them uncomfortable because they're instinctually attracted to those feminine cues. So when they discover that I'm not "really" a woman, they realize they've just felt potential feelings of attraction towards a man. The homophobia kicks in, but ironically, instead of recognizing the source of the problem in themselves, they project it onto me, claiming it's my fault they were attracted to me, because I tricked them by donning the "guise" of a female (this is the mentality behind the phenomenon of "traps"). This could only be possible in a culture where having even a mistaken and transient male homosexual attraction is something frightening that threatens a man's very humanity.
I have, on occasion, seen guys that look like girls and thought at first that they were attractive. Upon realizing that they are guys, the attraction mostly fades - not because I'm scared of being attracted to guys, but merely because there is something about guys that turns me off, and something lacking in them that girls have that turns me on, and so knowing that they are guys does undermine the attraction significantly. I can, however, still recognize that the guys are pretty, or attractive in an objective sense (like being "model pretty" or aesthetically beautiful), and without at any point feeling threatened that I was mistakenly attracted to a guy. I guess I can have confidence in my sexual orientation, both because I've reached a point where even if I did turn out to have some gay feelings, I'd know there was nothing wrong or bad about it, and also because I've explored my sexual feelings pretty far, and I have a pretty solid understanding of what they are.
I can just imagine the following scenario:
Buff guy: Me and the buds are going to the gym to lift weights. You in?
Effeminate guy: Nah, I promised the girls I'd go tanning with them.
Buff guy: Pff, that's so gay.
Effeminate guy: Right. And while you and "the buds" are all sweating together, complimenting each other on your buff bodies, I'll be stripped to my skivvies with a bunch of girls rubbing tanning oil all over their nearly naked bodies. If that's gay, then I'm a flaming homosexual and proud of it.
Buff guy: Ugh, dude, save it for the parade...
Friday, June 21, 2013
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Why I don't identify as a "sissy"
It's actually very simple. Sissification is a process of humiliation via feminization. But I don't feel humiliated by my own feminization - I feel empowered by it! Girls are not, to me, inferior beings; they are better than men in almost every way!
Now, I understand the sexual appeal of humiliation. And I don't want to rain on anyone's sexual fantasies (believe me, that's the last thing I want to do) - and as long as you understand the difference between those fantasies and reality (i.e., not humiliating real females outside the bedroom), then play on.
But it does seem kind of unfortunate, the sexist implications of sissification - and I think it would be nice if we could accomplish the goal of sexual humiliation in a less gender-rigid way. So, like, instead of identifying everything feminine as something humiliating, you could focus on the submissive aspect, and various roles (like servant, housekeeper) and outfits (something unglamorous like rags, or embarrassing like a clown costume) that don't carry a direct gender-specific connotation.
That'd be nice, but I do understand that you can't just reason your sexual desires to be whatever you want, and that, especially, non-PC roles can be extremely thrilling in large part because of how 'bad' or 'wrong' they are.
But, if you've ever wondered why I, personally, don't identify as a sissy, it's because I don't find feminization humiliating. It turns me on, to be sure, but for a wholly different reason: that is, I'm attracted to femininity itself, and the idea of being feminine; humiliation doesn't come into the picture at all.
Now, I understand the sexual appeal of humiliation. And I don't want to rain on anyone's sexual fantasies (believe me, that's the last thing I want to do) - and as long as you understand the difference between those fantasies and reality (i.e., not humiliating real females outside the bedroom), then play on.
But it does seem kind of unfortunate, the sexist implications of sissification - and I think it would be nice if we could accomplish the goal of sexual humiliation in a less gender-rigid way. So, like, instead of identifying everything feminine as something humiliating, you could focus on the submissive aspect, and various roles (like servant, housekeeper) and outfits (something unglamorous like rags, or embarrassing like a clown costume) that don't carry a direct gender-specific connotation.
That'd be nice, but I do understand that you can't just reason your sexual desires to be whatever you want, and that, especially, non-PC roles can be extremely thrilling in large part because of how 'bad' or 'wrong' they are.
But, if you've ever wondered why I, personally, don't identify as a sissy, it's because I don't find feminization humiliating. It turns me on, to be sure, but for a wholly different reason: that is, I'm attracted to femininity itself, and the idea of being feminine; humiliation doesn't come into the picture at all.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Legs Are In
I am so totally in love with contemporary fashion right now. Feminism be damned, girls are being decked out like gemstones in bright pastels and glittering sequins. And to hell with modesty, when you're out in the summer sun, the name of the game seems to be 'dare to bare'. I mean, girls aren't even waiting to develop their figures before they start strutting around the pool in their two-piece bikinis!
And a super popular trend these days - which also happens to be my top favorite off-the-beach summer look - is the short shorts and flip flops combo. Both of these pieces are popular; they're simple and ultra-versatile, and yet they come in so many different styles! It almost doesn't even matter what's on top - although a belly-baring tank top is a sweet and sassy choice. Cool, yet oh so hot. But the key to it all is bare legs, from the feet all the way up to the top of the thigh.
Yes sir, legs are in. This is, no doubt, a fantastic time to be a leg man. And unlike the sultry sophistication of heels and stockings, bare legs are casual, everyday fare in the summer, and practically every hottie is sporting them - from the parks to the supermarkets to the local mall, you can see them everywhere! Between the glistening bikini bods and the long-legged ladies of the neighborhood, skin has never been so in. Goddess be praised!
And a super popular trend these days - which also happens to be my top favorite off-the-beach summer look - is the short shorts and flip flops combo. Both of these pieces are popular; they're simple and ultra-versatile, and yet they come in so many different styles! It almost doesn't even matter what's on top - although a belly-baring tank top is a sweet and sassy choice. Cool, yet oh so hot. But the key to it all is bare legs, from the feet all the way up to the top of the thigh.
Yes sir, legs are in. This is, no doubt, a fantastic time to be a leg man. And unlike the sultry sophistication of heels and stockings, bare legs are casual, everyday fare in the summer, and practically every hottie is sporting them - from the parks to the supermarkets to the local mall, you can see them everywhere! Between the glistening bikini bods and the long-legged ladies of the neighborhood, skin has never been so in. Goddess be praised!
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Looking Ahead
As you probably know, I post most of my photography on flickr. Flickr was the best and only photo-sharing website I could find to exhibit my photography. I appreciated their reasonable rules (as opposed to, well, opposition) regarding images containing nudity or depicting sexually explicit activity. At the same time, flickr was not designed and has never been advertised as a haunt for perverts hunting porn, so I really felt like my softcore, artistic approach to erotica would be welcomed (without being censored), and it has. Plus, flickr has an excellent community of users, and their website poses as a fantastic tool for organizing one's photography.
That having been said, with flickr's recent new overhaul (yet another in a long line of unasked-for changes to their website and how it functions), I figured it was a perfect opportunity to take a hiatus from the website and focus on other, long-neglected avenues for exhibiting my photography. I've already begun work on a series of photobooks [aborted] that I am very excited about, chronicling my rise as an erotic photographer. Meanwhile, I've begun uploading select videos from an unreleased daily nude video project on my modeling profile [defunct] at XTube.
I'll try to keep you updated here with all the major new developments, but definitely bookmark my website (here [NSFW] is the page for my erotic photography) to stay in the loop!
That having been said, with flickr's recent new overhaul (yet another in a long line of unasked-for changes to their website and how it functions), I figured it was a perfect opportunity to take a hiatus from the website and focus on other, long-neglected avenues for exhibiting my photography. I've already begun work on a series of photobooks [aborted] that I am very excited about, chronicling my rise as an erotic photographer. Meanwhile, I've begun uploading select videos from an unreleased daily nude video project on my modeling profile [defunct] at XTube.
I'll try to keep you updated here with all the major new developments, but definitely bookmark my website (here [NSFW] is the page for my erotic photography) to stay in the loop!
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Business and Pleasure
I was following a discussion on women entering the pornography industry, and the usual stereotypes and cliches were being tossed around. One statement in particular that I heard often was the understanding that most (if not all) women got involved in doing porn as a desperate last-measure attempt to earn some quick money, and that the job was not something they enjoyed, but rather something they found uncomfortable and degrading. Sometimes, even, the women were forced or pressured into doing it, but even in the cases where their voluntary consent was given, it was always something they didn't enjoy, something they endured for the paycheck.
Which is like any other job, am I right? I find it interesting that the people making these comments were, as far as I can tell, exclusively men who have not had first-hand experience with the porn industry (other than as end users) and its operations, nor have they ever had a personal relationship with any of these women who have done porn. Now, certainly, these men are entitled to their opinions, and it's encouraging that they are at least thinking about the conditions under which the porn videos they pleasure themselves to are being made. But I have to ask the question, how much of it is true, and how much are these opinions a combination of pervasive and inaccurate stereotypes, and these men's own post-feminist guilt over consuming and enjoying material that high-profile (if not real) feminists like to publicly state is degrading to women?
I don't have the answers to these questions, unfortunately. And I am not so naive as to believe that there are no problems in the porn industry - that no women are ever forced or pressured into getting involved, or into doing certain activities they'd rather not, or that every woman who does it finds it degrading and is only doing it for the pay check. I mean, that's way too close to saying that women never enjoy sex. I know that, with the exception of so-called "feminist" porn and gay porn and whatnot, the bulk of porn is produced for straight men featuring women, with the emphasis on portraying the woman as a desirable sex object. But isn't that just half of the mating ritual anyway, with the part about the woman's desire deemphasized (because, after all, it's a product created for men, not for couples)? Are there not women who, like some men, are exhibitionists, who enjoy being displayed and desired by large audiences? Are there not even some women who derive sexual pleasure from being "degraded"? What about women who actually like men enough (i.e., not the stereotypical "dyke feminist") to care about doing things to turn men on and give them pleasure, even if it's not strictly something they're doing for themselves? And aren't these women the ones who are most likely to pursue a job in porn?
In short, is it really that hard to imagine a woman wanting to do porn, and not feeling degraded by it? I know I am not a woman, and gender politicians will say it's different, but I wouldn't mind doing some porn myself. I'm already an erotic model, but for this discussion I'll consider "porn" as having sex with another person on camera. And, true to form, I feel like, in order to put my money where my mouth is (so to speak), I ought to do at least one porn video to prove I'm not against it - even enthusiastic about the idea. I have, actually, done some amateur stuff that's probably not worth sharing; I think participating in a professional production is a much different experience. And that brings up an important distinction between amateur and professional porn - where amateur porn is more likely to depict people enjoying the sex acts they're engaging in, whereas professional porn is just people doing jobs for money.
And that's kinda the thing. If I were to do a porn video, there would be certain requirements for me to feel comfortable and maintain my enthusiasm. For one thing, I'd have to be partnered with somebody I have at least some sexual chemistry with and attraction to. The hotter they are, the more enthusiastic I'd be, of course, but they wouldn't have to be, like, super model attractive for me to be willing to participate. On the other hand, if it were someone I was just really not attracted to, I might have a hard time agreeing to it (and if I did, I would not feel very comfortable in that situation). For most women, they're straight, so posing with men for porn is at least in the right ballpark. In my case, straight couples are marketed almost purely for men with the emphasis on the woman in the pair, and so if I were hoping for any kind of a significant market for my video, I'd pretty much be forced to do gay porn, and that's something that's going to be a whole lot harder for me to agree to, much less enjoy.
And then there are certain acts I would and wouldn't enjoy doing. This is pretty much standard sex talk here. I like this. I don't like that. Now, if you're being paid to fuck, it seems like the question's going to hinge more on what you are willing to do, not what you like to do. And that brings in the whole issue of degradation for pay, and the difference between business and pleasure. I actually prefer porn where the people involved are more participants than actors, and for whom doing the acts on camera is something they enjoy, and not strictly something they're doing to get paid. But then, that's kind of the nature of professional porn - "what are you willing to do for a paycheck?" - which is kind of degrading.
So I guess I really see porn in two ways. The professional side is more likely to involve coercion and degradation - although at the end of the day, if somebody is willing to do something for a check, that's not any more degrading than any other job, so long as the price is right, and we should respect rather than pity these people who are willing to sacrifice something of themselves for our ultimate pleasure (and their pay check, of course, but there is a reason someone chooses porn and not a different degrading job). On the other side is the amateur mentality, where probably noone is getting paid, they're just doing it for the fun of it. That's the attitude I like in porn, but unfortunately, amateur videos don't have the production values of professional ones. And what's more (I find this a con, but others actually think it's a positive), amateur porn is more likely to involve "normal"-looking people, whereas I like to see super hot people in the porn I watch.
Ideally, perhaps it would make sense to create a sort of merging of amateur mentality with professional production values, to form a sort of "fair trade porn". It'd be nice to know that the professional porn you're watching was created with certain standards in place, that attempt to reduce if not eliminate the poor working conditions for women (and non-women) that are involved. I think some of the basic tenets of this ethos would be that the participants not be pressured into taking the job, that they be paid a fair wage for their labor, and that their boundaries and comfort level be respected before, during, and after the production. Basically, I could imagine a scouting interview going something like this. "Would you like to do some porn? We'll pay you to have sex on camera. What are your limits and boundaries? What would you enjoy doing, and what would you not want to do? What type of person are you willing to have sex with on camera? We want to do everything we can to make this as comfortable and fun for you as possible. Alright, let's get started."
And that is absolutely the kind of porn I would be willing to do - enthusiastically. Because porn is a good thing, and we need lots of it in the world, and the more of it is produced under non-coercive, non-degrading conditions, the better we can all feel about ourselves, and the sooner we can shake off this poison mentality that all porn is harmful to women and its participants. And when that happens, think of how many more people will be eager to participate in porn!
Which is like any other job, am I right? I find it interesting that the people making these comments were, as far as I can tell, exclusively men who have not had first-hand experience with the porn industry (other than as end users) and its operations, nor have they ever had a personal relationship with any of these women who have done porn. Now, certainly, these men are entitled to their opinions, and it's encouraging that they are at least thinking about the conditions under which the porn videos they pleasure themselves to are being made. But I have to ask the question, how much of it is true, and how much are these opinions a combination of pervasive and inaccurate stereotypes, and these men's own post-feminist guilt over consuming and enjoying material that high-profile (if not real) feminists like to publicly state is degrading to women?
I don't have the answers to these questions, unfortunately. And I am not so naive as to believe that there are no problems in the porn industry - that no women are ever forced or pressured into getting involved, or into doing certain activities they'd rather not, or that every woman who does it finds it degrading and is only doing it for the pay check. I mean, that's way too close to saying that women never enjoy sex. I know that, with the exception of so-called "feminist" porn and gay porn and whatnot, the bulk of porn is produced for straight men featuring women, with the emphasis on portraying the woman as a desirable sex object. But isn't that just half of the mating ritual anyway, with the part about the woman's desire deemphasized (because, after all, it's a product created for men, not for couples)? Are there not women who, like some men, are exhibitionists, who enjoy being displayed and desired by large audiences? Are there not even some women who derive sexual pleasure from being "degraded"? What about women who actually like men enough (i.e., not the stereotypical "dyke feminist") to care about doing things to turn men on and give them pleasure, even if it's not strictly something they're doing for themselves? And aren't these women the ones who are most likely to pursue a job in porn?
In short, is it really that hard to imagine a woman wanting to do porn, and not feeling degraded by it? I know I am not a woman, and gender politicians will say it's different, but I wouldn't mind doing some porn myself. I'm already an erotic model, but for this discussion I'll consider "porn" as having sex with another person on camera. And, true to form, I feel like, in order to put my money where my mouth is (so to speak), I ought to do at least one porn video to prove I'm not against it - even enthusiastic about the idea. I have, actually, done some amateur stuff that's probably not worth sharing; I think participating in a professional production is a much different experience. And that brings up an important distinction between amateur and professional porn - where amateur porn is more likely to depict people enjoying the sex acts they're engaging in, whereas professional porn is just people doing jobs for money.
And that's kinda the thing. If I were to do a porn video, there would be certain requirements for me to feel comfortable and maintain my enthusiasm. For one thing, I'd have to be partnered with somebody I have at least some sexual chemistry with and attraction to. The hotter they are, the more enthusiastic I'd be, of course, but they wouldn't have to be, like, super model attractive for me to be willing to participate. On the other hand, if it were someone I was just really not attracted to, I might have a hard time agreeing to it (and if I did, I would not feel very comfortable in that situation). For most women, they're straight, so posing with men for porn is at least in the right ballpark. In my case, straight couples are marketed almost purely for men with the emphasis on the woman in the pair, and so if I were hoping for any kind of a significant market for my video, I'd pretty much be forced to do gay porn, and that's something that's going to be a whole lot harder for me to agree to, much less enjoy.
And then there are certain acts I would and wouldn't enjoy doing. This is pretty much standard sex talk here. I like this. I don't like that. Now, if you're being paid to fuck, it seems like the question's going to hinge more on what you are willing to do, not what you like to do. And that brings in the whole issue of degradation for pay, and the difference between business and pleasure. I actually prefer porn where the people involved are more participants than actors, and for whom doing the acts on camera is something they enjoy, and not strictly something they're doing to get paid. But then, that's kind of the nature of professional porn - "what are you willing to do for a paycheck?" - which is kind of degrading.
So I guess I really see porn in two ways. The professional side is more likely to involve coercion and degradation - although at the end of the day, if somebody is willing to do something for a check, that's not any more degrading than any other job, so long as the price is right, and we should respect rather than pity these people who are willing to sacrifice something of themselves for our ultimate pleasure (and their pay check, of course, but there is a reason someone chooses porn and not a different degrading job). On the other side is the amateur mentality, where probably noone is getting paid, they're just doing it for the fun of it. That's the attitude I like in porn, but unfortunately, amateur videos don't have the production values of professional ones. And what's more (I find this a con, but others actually think it's a positive), amateur porn is more likely to involve "normal"-looking people, whereas I like to see super hot people in the porn I watch.
Ideally, perhaps it would make sense to create a sort of merging of amateur mentality with professional production values, to form a sort of "fair trade porn". It'd be nice to know that the professional porn you're watching was created with certain standards in place, that attempt to reduce if not eliminate the poor working conditions for women (and non-women) that are involved. I think some of the basic tenets of this ethos would be that the participants not be pressured into taking the job, that they be paid a fair wage for their labor, and that their boundaries and comfort level be respected before, during, and after the production. Basically, I could imagine a scouting interview going something like this. "Would you like to do some porn? We'll pay you to have sex on camera. What are your limits and boundaries? What would you enjoy doing, and what would you not want to do? What type of person are you willing to have sex with on camera? We want to do everything we can to make this as comfortable and fun for you as possible. Alright, let's get started."
And that is absolutely the kind of porn I would be willing to do - enthusiastically. Because porn is a good thing, and we need lots of it in the world, and the more of it is produced under non-coercive, non-degrading conditions, the better we can all feel about ourselves, and the sooner we can shake off this poison mentality that all porn is harmful to women and its participants. And when that happens, think of how many more people will be eager to participate in porn!
Friday, May 3, 2013
National Teen Pregnancy Prevention Month
Personally, I think getting pregnant as a teenager is a bad idea. But I'm not so arrogant as to presume that my ideal life plan is right for everyone. And rather than consider "teen pregnancy" this big, social evil, it bears recognizing that thousands of years of evolution are backing a teen's strong desire to get laid. In today's rational, civilized world, the ideal conditions for parenthood have perhaps changed, but if we want to fight this overpowering biological impulse, we should first acknowledge its strength, and refrain from treating those who fail to resist it as lesser beings.
Now, certainly, unplanned pregnancy is quite a problem. More so than it would have been in prehistoric days, when pretty much the sole drive in life was to procreate. But I don't think discouraging teens from having sex is nearly as effective as teaching them how to do it safely. Unfortunately, some people are just too stupid to prevent getting pregnant unexpectedly, or too stubborn to understand why they probably shouldn't get pregnant when they still live with their parents, are legal minors, and haven't even graduated from high school. I don't know what we can do about them - possibly nothing, as again, you have to recognize the overpowering biological impulse behind these modern social snafus.
But the term "teen pregnancy" - as a thing that ought to be prevented - is kind of a little offensive. Like, it implies that there are no conditions under which a teen getting pregnant is a) a good thing, and b) the right decision for that teen. 18 and 19 year olds are teens, too, and they are old enough to be out of high school. And though we encourage all kids to go to college if they can afford it (many can't), for some people, starting life at 18 is the right thing to do (and waiting only makes things worse).
Consider, for example, the 16 year old girl who starts dating a man a few years older than her (because women mature faster than men, and because while women are traditionally given the role of mother and homemaker, the man is expected to provide for the family, which in modern days means getting a well-paying job - something a college graduate is probably more likely to have than a high school graduate). In a couple years, she graduates high school, and her boyfriend graduates college. He gets a great job with good prospects right out of college, and the girl is ready to start a family. They've been going out for at least two years now, are compatible, and really like each other. So they get married, and conceive their first child. The girl is 18. Is her pregnancy one of the ones that the Society for the Prevention of Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy is trying to prevent?
I get that "preventing unplanned pregnancy" doesn't accurately address the problem of teens getting pregnant willfully when they probably shouldn't. And I think it's important to get through to those who really haven't thought it through, and don't have the means to support a child, before they make that decision (although for those who have, I'll respect their decision, whether I agree with it or not). But the whole paradigm of "teen pregnancy is bad" seems to support this underlying belief that teens are inadequately prepared to make responsible decisions about their own sex lives. And while many of them may be, in a lot of cases the solution is better education, and certainly, it's not the case with every single teen. And, ultimately, it just supports the agenda of trying to keep teens from having sex ("wait until you're older" is their mantra) instead of giving them the tools to make better decisions right now. And that approach is doomed to fail - thousands of years of evolution and an overpowering biological impulse will see to that, I guarantee it.
Now, certainly, unplanned pregnancy is quite a problem. More so than it would have been in prehistoric days, when pretty much the sole drive in life was to procreate. But I don't think discouraging teens from having sex is nearly as effective as teaching them how to do it safely. Unfortunately, some people are just too stupid to prevent getting pregnant unexpectedly, or too stubborn to understand why they probably shouldn't get pregnant when they still live with their parents, are legal minors, and haven't even graduated from high school. I don't know what we can do about them - possibly nothing, as again, you have to recognize the overpowering biological impulse behind these modern social snafus.
But the term "teen pregnancy" - as a thing that ought to be prevented - is kind of a little offensive. Like, it implies that there are no conditions under which a teen getting pregnant is a) a good thing, and b) the right decision for that teen. 18 and 19 year olds are teens, too, and they are old enough to be out of high school. And though we encourage all kids to go to college if they can afford it (many can't), for some people, starting life at 18 is the right thing to do (and waiting only makes things worse).
Consider, for example, the 16 year old girl who starts dating a man a few years older than her (because women mature faster than men, and because while women are traditionally given the role of mother and homemaker, the man is expected to provide for the family, which in modern days means getting a well-paying job - something a college graduate is probably more likely to have than a high school graduate). In a couple years, she graduates high school, and her boyfriend graduates college. He gets a great job with good prospects right out of college, and the girl is ready to start a family. They've been going out for at least two years now, are compatible, and really like each other. So they get married, and conceive their first child. The girl is 18. Is her pregnancy one of the ones that the Society for the Prevention of Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy is trying to prevent?
I get that "preventing unplanned pregnancy" doesn't accurately address the problem of teens getting pregnant willfully when they probably shouldn't. And I think it's important to get through to those who really haven't thought it through, and don't have the means to support a child, before they make that decision (although for those who have, I'll respect their decision, whether I agree with it or not). But the whole paradigm of "teen pregnancy is bad" seems to support this underlying belief that teens are inadequately prepared to make responsible decisions about their own sex lives. And while many of them may be, in a lot of cases the solution is better education, and certainly, it's not the case with every single teen. And, ultimately, it just supports the agenda of trying to keep teens from having sex ("wait until you're older" is their mantra) instead of giving them the tools to make better decisions right now. And that approach is doomed to fail - thousands of years of evolution and an overpowering biological impulse will see to that, I guarantee it.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Shit Girls Say About Sex
I read this piece in Seventeen magazine (about peer pressure), and I couldn't help responding to some of its points. What we teach young people about sex goes a long way in molding their attitudes and approach to sex, and so what we say to them is worth careful consideration. Unfortunately, sex educators are frequently more concerned with preventing teens from becoming sexually active than ensuring they develop healthy and responsible attitudes toward sex. As a result, you have abstinence-plus education which purports to give teens good advice about being sexually active, but never misses an opportunity to slip in some propaganda designed to cause girls to second guess whether when they think they're ready is when they're really ready (because you can't possibly be ready before you're in a longterm committed relationship, with the boy you plan to marry, right?).
#1 "double-bagging"
This piece of advice concerns the risks of doubling up your condoms, and is pretty sound. But, of course, the reader is treated to a trite "the only 100% safe sex is waiting!" at the end.
I'm sorry, but not having sex does not constitute safe sex. Yes, you won't get pregnant and you won't catch a sexually transmitted disease if you don't have sex. But it's not like choosing to wait is a 100% effective way of not having sex anyway. People change their minds in the heat of a (possibly inebriated) moment and, I hate to bring it up but, rape happens.
Of course, the person who lacks the willpower to follow through on her promise has only herself to blame, and the victim of a rape is not the one responsible for it happening. But it just seems so patronizing to repeat the mantra "if you wanna be safe, wait!", especially considering that those people who don't want to wait probably want to be safe, too.
Ultimately, becoming sexually active is a choice in which one must weigh the risks of sex against the desire to have sex (a force frequently underrated by sex educators). Avoiding sex altogether because of its risks is unrealistic, especially considering the reasonable lengths to which we can go to significantly decrease those risks. If a person is not prepared to deal with those risks (reduced or otherwise), then it goes without saying (let alone repeating) that their best bet is to avoid sex.
But saying, "if you wanna be safe, wait" is like a slap in the face to anyone who chooses to become sexually active, but desires to be as responsible as possible. And if they get unlucky or screw up, then it seems less a matter of having to take responsibility for one's choices (which in this case involved knowingly engaging in risky activities) and more a matter of being punished because you didn't make the right choice and just wait. :(
#2 "blue balls"
This was an odd piece of advice. Now, I'm willing to believe that other guys experience sexual arousal differently than I do (and I certainly don't rate myself as average), but I have never experienced the phenomenon of "blue balls", the importance and severity of which Seventeen attempts to minimize here. But in my experience, it's not exaggerated, it's an outright myth.
I mean, yeah, if you're all revved up for sex, and then your partner unexpectedly leaves you hanging, then certainly you're going to feel kind of...frustrated. But that's psychological; it's not a physical ache in your balls, from accumulation of blood. At least, not in mine.
Seventeen takes the right approach in trying to downplay this phenomenon, but I don't think they take it far enough. And because I don't see it as a real problem, their addressing it as one in effect reinforces it. Which is problematic, because the very notion of "blue balls" makes some uncomfortable implications.
Like, for example, the idea that sex is all about the climax for the guy. I know, this is the stereotypical script, but I can't be the only guy in the world who likes the feeling of being turned on even when I don't have an opportunity to get off. Or am I?
And anyway, what about the woman's pleasure? All this anxiety over blue balls seems to imply that sex is an activity girls do to please guys. If the guy's not pleased, it's a bust. But doesn't the girl wanna be pleased, too? And anyway, a good sex partner is going to want to please his girl, whether he gets off in the end or not.
It just seems to me that this is a perfect opportunity to demonstrate to girls that sex can be a game played by your own rules, where the only goal is to have fun. But instead, the conservative paradigm of sex is reinforced - and that's exactly the sort of thing that breeds anxiety for girls who think sex is something men are going to pressure them into doing, instead of something enjoyable they might actually be seeking out for themselves.
#3 "virginal masturbation"
This is a tricky one. Seventeen reassures readers that masturbation doesn't count against your virginity status. It's good advice, in that it encourages girls to practice masturbation - which is good for anyone's sexual health. But it trips up in defending the notion of virginity as an admirable status to have.
I may be a little bit ahead of the curve here, but I believe we've reached a point in human culture where it's pretty clear that "virginity" doesn't make any sense. I mean, how do you define virginity? Vaginal intercourse? What about anal sex? Penetration? What about digital masturbation? Partner sex? What about foreplay, dry humping, tribadism? What about blow jobs? What about rape?
If virginity is a state of innocence and sexual purity, then even having thoughts and fantasies can spoil it. If it's about dedication to a path of virtue, then a girl could maintain her virginity through a gangbanging if she regrets it. And if it's about whether or not you've had certain experiences, who gets to decide which of those experiences count? How do we know where to draw the line?
There are vaginal penetration virgins, and there are anal virgins. There are blowjob virgins, and there are homosexual virgins. There are masturbation virgins, and there are rape virgins (one kind of virginity I would agree is desirable). But if virginity is about purity, then losing one kind of virginity kind of spoils the whole thing. And that includes masturbation.
I mean, are you really going to tell me that the sex-obsessed slut who masturbates twelve times daily with all sorts of inanimate objects and in all sorts of inappropriate situations, but has never been with a guy because she's paranoid about getting pregnant is still a virgin, and is as pure as the Mother Mary, and is much purer than the good girl who had protected sex just one time with her committed boyfriend, and didn't even like it much?
On the other hand, if virginity is about total purity, then what's so good about it anyway? Why should we treat people who shun sex as if they are superior to those who have indulged in it? A person should be free to decide when and what kind of sex acts they want to engage in, but I don't see any point in raising "virginity" as a desirable status, except to reinforce the notion that "you really shouldn't be having sex" which is just an extension of the "wait until tomorrow" mantra, which, after all, is just the sex educator's decree that "I know better than you what choices you should be making about your own life and body", which violates the whole concept of "when you're ready". Having to ask somebody else when you're ready defeats the purpose of it being a personal choice, and the only difference between that and being pressured into having sex is that the person making your decision for you is saying no instead of yes. Which, unsurprisingly, is the approach most sex educators have - "you're too dumb or hormonal to make good decisions, so I'm going to make them for you." But you don't have to have a graduate degree in psychology to see that that's not a very good way to teach people to make responsible decisions.
Furthermore, all this emphasis on virginity just makes that first time more stressful. Which is also part of the sex educator's sinister plan. The more they hype up "the first time", the harder it's going to be for a girl to tell herself, "yeah, this is the perfect opportunity I've been waiting for all my life." And the result is more girls waiting longer to have sex. Pretty underhanded, if you ask me. Especially given that it increases a girl's anxiety, and mucks up her ability to actually enjoy having sex.
#4 "everyone's doing it"
There's no two ways about this one. If you ask me, "everyone's doing it" is a pretty straightforward peer pressure tactic. Of course not everybody's doing it - you know that. More importantly, it's the image of "doing it" that's propped up as the social ideal. Well, you can lie about that just as well as anyone! (Well, okay, maybe not).
#1 "double-bagging"
This piece of advice concerns the risks of doubling up your condoms, and is pretty sound. But, of course, the reader is treated to a trite "the only 100% safe sex is waiting!" at the end.
I'm sorry, but not having sex does not constitute safe sex. Yes, you won't get pregnant and you won't catch a sexually transmitted disease if you don't have sex. But it's not like choosing to wait is a 100% effective way of not having sex anyway. People change their minds in the heat of a (possibly inebriated) moment and, I hate to bring it up but, rape happens.
Of course, the person who lacks the willpower to follow through on her promise has only herself to blame, and the victim of a rape is not the one responsible for it happening. But it just seems so patronizing to repeat the mantra "if you wanna be safe, wait!", especially considering that those people who don't want to wait probably want to be safe, too.
Ultimately, becoming sexually active is a choice in which one must weigh the risks of sex against the desire to have sex (a force frequently underrated by sex educators). Avoiding sex altogether because of its risks is unrealistic, especially considering the reasonable lengths to which we can go to significantly decrease those risks. If a person is not prepared to deal with those risks (reduced or otherwise), then it goes without saying (let alone repeating) that their best bet is to avoid sex.
But saying, "if you wanna be safe, wait" is like a slap in the face to anyone who chooses to become sexually active, but desires to be as responsible as possible. And if they get unlucky or screw up, then it seems less a matter of having to take responsibility for one's choices (which in this case involved knowingly engaging in risky activities) and more a matter of being punished because you didn't make the right choice and just wait. :(
#2 "blue balls"
This was an odd piece of advice. Now, I'm willing to believe that other guys experience sexual arousal differently than I do (and I certainly don't rate myself as average), but I have never experienced the phenomenon of "blue balls", the importance and severity of which Seventeen attempts to minimize here. But in my experience, it's not exaggerated, it's an outright myth.
I mean, yeah, if you're all revved up for sex, and then your partner unexpectedly leaves you hanging, then certainly you're going to feel kind of...frustrated. But that's psychological; it's not a physical ache in your balls, from accumulation of blood. At least, not in mine.
Seventeen takes the right approach in trying to downplay this phenomenon, but I don't think they take it far enough. And because I don't see it as a real problem, their addressing it as one in effect reinforces it. Which is problematic, because the very notion of "blue balls" makes some uncomfortable implications.
Like, for example, the idea that sex is all about the climax for the guy. I know, this is the stereotypical script, but I can't be the only guy in the world who likes the feeling of being turned on even when I don't have an opportunity to get off. Or am I?
And anyway, what about the woman's pleasure? All this anxiety over blue balls seems to imply that sex is an activity girls do to please guys. If the guy's not pleased, it's a bust. But doesn't the girl wanna be pleased, too? And anyway, a good sex partner is going to want to please his girl, whether he gets off in the end or not.
It just seems to me that this is a perfect opportunity to demonstrate to girls that sex can be a game played by your own rules, where the only goal is to have fun. But instead, the conservative paradigm of sex is reinforced - and that's exactly the sort of thing that breeds anxiety for girls who think sex is something men are going to pressure them into doing, instead of something enjoyable they might actually be seeking out for themselves.
#3 "virginal masturbation"
This is a tricky one. Seventeen reassures readers that masturbation doesn't count against your virginity status. It's good advice, in that it encourages girls to practice masturbation - which is good for anyone's sexual health. But it trips up in defending the notion of virginity as an admirable status to have.
I may be a little bit ahead of the curve here, but I believe we've reached a point in human culture where it's pretty clear that "virginity" doesn't make any sense. I mean, how do you define virginity? Vaginal intercourse? What about anal sex? Penetration? What about digital masturbation? Partner sex? What about foreplay, dry humping, tribadism? What about blow jobs? What about rape?
If virginity is a state of innocence and sexual purity, then even having thoughts and fantasies can spoil it. If it's about dedication to a path of virtue, then a girl could maintain her virginity through a gangbanging if she regrets it. And if it's about whether or not you've had certain experiences, who gets to decide which of those experiences count? How do we know where to draw the line?
There are vaginal penetration virgins, and there are anal virgins. There are blowjob virgins, and there are homosexual virgins. There are masturbation virgins, and there are rape virgins (one kind of virginity I would agree is desirable). But if virginity is about purity, then losing one kind of virginity kind of spoils the whole thing. And that includes masturbation.
I mean, are you really going to tell me that the sex-obsessed slut who masturbates twelve times daily with all sorts of inanimate objects and in all sorts of inappropriate situations, but has never been with a guy because she's paranoid about getting pregnant is still a virgin, and is as pure as the Mother Mary, and is much purer than the good girl who had protected sex just one time with her committed boyfriend, and didn't even like it much?
On the other hand, if virginity is about total purity, then what's so good about it anyway? Why should we treat people who shun sex as if they are superior to those who have indulged in it? A person should be free to decide when and what kind of sex acts they want to engage in, but I don't see any point in raising "virginity" as a desirable status, except to reinforce the notion that "you really shouldn't be having sex" which is just an extension of the "wait until tomorrow" mantra, which, after all, is just the sex educator's decree that "I know better than you what choices you should be making about your own life and body", which violates the whole concept of "when you're ready". Having to ask somebody else when you're ready defeats the purpose of it being a personal choice, and the only difference between that and being pressured into having sex is that the person making your decision for you is saying no instead of yes. Which, unsurprisingly, is the approach most sex educators have - "you're too dumb or hormonal to make good decisions, so I'm going to make them for you." But you don't have to have a graduate degree in psychology to see that that's not a very good way to teach people to make responsible decisions.
Furthermore, all this emphasis on virginity just makes that first time more stressful. Which is also part of the sex educator's sinister plan. The more they hype up "the first time", the harder it's going to be for a girl to tell herself, "yeah, this is the perfect opportunity I've been waiting for all my life." And the result is more girls waiting longer to have sex. Pretty underhanded, if you ask me. Especially given that it increases a girl's anxiety, and mucks up her ability to actually enjoy having sex.
#4 "everyone's doing it"
There's no two ways about this one. If you ask me, "everyone's doing it" is a pretty straightforward peer pressure tactic. Of course not everybody's doing it - you know that. More importantly, it's the image of "doing it" that's propped up as the social ideal. Well, you can lie about that just as well as anyone! (Well, okay, maybe not).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)